State v. Toombs
| Citation | 45 N.W. 300,79 Iowa 741 |
| Parties | STATE v. TOOMBS. |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1890 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Benton county; G. M. GILCHIRST, Judge.
Defendant was indicted and tried for keeping a house of ill fame, and from a verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon, he appeals.W. C. Connell, for appellant.
Stone, Atty. Gen., and J. T. Christy, Co. Atty., for the State.
1. It is claimed by counsel for appellant that the court erred in overruling a motion to quash the indictment. The charging part of the indictment is as follows: “That the said defendant, Daniel Toombs, did on or about the 1st day of May, 1886, and on divers other days between that day and the finding of this indictment, in the county of Benton, and state of Iowa, unlawfully and willfully keep a house of ill fame, resorted to by divers persons, whose names are unknown to this grand jury, for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness, contrary to and in violation of law.” The ground of the motion was that the indictment charged two offenses, because it is stated therein that the defendant kept a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purposes of “prostitution or lewdness.” The objection is that the word “and” should have been used between the words “prostitution” and “lewdness.” The objection appears to us to be without merit. The crime charged in the indictment is keeping a house of ill fame, which is a single offense, and the statement of what was carried on or permitted at the house is but a statement of what acts may constitute the crime. Moreover, the indictment is in the very language of the statute. Code, § 4012. This is sufficient. An indictment charging an offense in the language of the statute is not open to objection on account of its form. State v. Smith, 46 Iowa, 670;State v. Curran, 51 Iowa, 112;State v. Brewer, 53 Iowa, 735, 6 N. W. Rep. 62.
2. The defendant objected and excepted to certain testimony given in behalf of the state by a witness named W. W. Brewer. He was the driver of an omnibus, and testified that he had frequently taken women to the defendant's house, in day-time and at night. He was asked the following question: “Do you remember any conversation you had with one there last winter?” The question was objected to unless the conversation with the woman was in the presence of the defendant. The objection was overruled, and the witness answered as follows: It is claimed that this testimony was hearsay, and, not being in defendant's presence, he was not bound by it, and that any man might be ruined by designing women making such statements. We think the evidence was competent. It was a most material fact tending to sustain the indictment. It showed that the woman making the statement was a prostitute, and that she entered the defendant's house and gave out an invitation or request to the witness to bring men to the house. The character of the women who made the house a stopping place could be shown by their conversation not in the presence of the defendant.
3. It is further urged that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. We cannot reverse the judgment on this ground. It is sufficiently shown that the defendant was the keeper of the house, and that it had the reputation of being a house of ill fame. The evidence of the bad reputation of the house is abundant to establish the fact that it was known as a house of ill fame, and it is sufficiently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roby
...... there was a fair presumption that her evidence would not be. favorable. People v. Hovey, 92 N.Y. 554. In another. Iowa case, a criminal case, similar statements in the. argument of the state's attorney to the jury were held. not prejudicial misconduct. State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa. 741, 45 N.W. 300. . . We are. not disposed to go to either of these extremes. In. National German-American Bank v. Lawrence, 77 Minn. 282, 79 N.W. 1016, 80 N.W. 363, it was said, the failure to. call a spouse is not a case of suppression of evidence which. ......
-
State v. Roby
...case, similar statements in the argument of the state's attorney to the jury were held not prejudicial misconduct. State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741, 45 N. W. 300. We are not disposed to go to either of these extremes. In National German-American Bank v. Lawrence, 77 Minn. 282, 79 N. W. 1016,80......
-
State v. Roby
...case, similar statements in the argument of the state's attorney to the jury were held not prejudicial misconduct. State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741, 45 N. W. 300. We are not disposed to go to either of these extremes. In National German-American Bank v. Lawrence, 77 Minn. 282, 79 N. W. 1016, 8......
-
State v. Corcoran
...for purposes of prostitution and lewdness, it is permissible to charge the offense in these words. Com. v. Ashley, 2 Gray, 356; State v. Toombs, 79 Iowa, 741, 45 N W. 300. An indictment which charges the defendant, in the words of the statute, with keeping and maintaining a common nuisance,......